9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to notice u/s 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961 based on alleged escapement of income from assessment u/s 143(1)(a) and validity of reopening assessment u/s 147.
Summary: The appellant challenged a notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on alleged escapement of income from assessment. The appellant contended that completion of assessment u/s 143(1)(a) precludes the Assessing Officer from issuing a notice u/s 148. The appellant argued that reassessment should only be done by resorting to section 143(2) after expiry of the time for such scrutiny. However, the court held that reassessment proceedings can be initiated even after acceptance of the return under section 143(1)(a) if conditions for reassessment u/s 147 exist. The appellant further contended that the basis of reopening assessment was a finding in an order u/s 132(5), which merged with the assessment order u/s 143(1)(a). The court disagreed, stating that the order u/s 132(5) is not an assessment and does not preclude reassessment under section 147. The court emphasized that the duty of the assessee is to disclose all primary facts necessary for assessment, regardless of previous proceedings. The court held that the Assessing Officer can reopen assessment u/s 147 if the conditions are met, even if other remedies are available. The court rejected the argument that the Assessing Officer was fully aware of findings in the order u/s 132(5), stating that the order is unrelated to the duty of the assessee to disclose all necessary particulars for assessment. The court emphasized that failure to disclose material facts in the return justifies reassessment by the Assessing Officer. In conclusion, the court dismissed the application challenging the notice u/s 148 and allowed the assessee to raise contentions regarding the assessability of the undisclosed income before the Assessing Officer. The court emphasized the importance of full disclosure by the assessee for proper assessment and upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 in this case.
|
